I like it when you shut up???

Mi favorito poema de Neruda de nuestro libro está “Me gustas cuando callas porque estás como ausente” porque cuando lo leí en español, creí que era sobre una situación muy común pero él diseca la situación en algo más sencillo. Pensí que cuando dice “Me gustas cuando callas porque estás como ausente” la mujer (quizá una novia) no está hablando a él problamente porque ella está enojado y por un momento es mejor que gritando. Pero al fin, dice que “distante y dolorosa como si hubieras muerto”, entonces la situación hace incómodo y lo ve la silencia como está mala; después dice “una palabra entonces, una sonrisa bastan” porque se gustaría que ella hable, casi negociando con ella por solo una palabra y una sonrisa. El último frase “Y estoy alegre, alegre de que no sea cierto” significa que el está alegre que ella no es muerte.

Pero a mí, es interesante que en inglés, lo leyera diferentemente. I read “I like you when you are silent because you are as though absent”, and I saw different images of what Neruda was trying to convey. I saw someone who was sad and wasn’t speaking because they were unable, choked up perhaps. “and you are like the word melancholy” stands out to me more in the English version. Of course, I understand English better than Spanish (though I enjoyed the poem better in Spanish than in English) and I imagine that because of this my interpretation of the Spanish version was probably wrong. My point being though, that translated, the poems meaning changes and certain things that are more significant in Spanish can sound less in English and vise-versa. What threw me off initially was the word “callas” in comparison to “silent”. I read callas to be something a little more malicious, like “I like it when you shut up because it’s like you’re absent” (haha, not quite as poetic as the translation). As you may well see, from that starting point, the poem takes on a whole new meaning.

I would like to know more about how other people interpreted this poem. Please share…

International best selling phenomenon!!!

So… what to say about The Alchemist…

I am not sure whether I should just like this book, or admit its obvious faults.

I have read this book two times already (side note to Jon—I have also read, and own: One Hundred Years of Solitude, Love in the Times of Cholera, Collected Stories , Chronicle of a Love Foretold and Of Love and Other Demons [response to your quote = “I'd wager that the market for Coelho and the market for García Márquez, vast as they both are, are also almost entirely distinct: i.e. that those who read the former hardly ever read the latter, or vice versa.”]), though to be fair, it is the only Coelho I have read. The first time I read it was in a hammock, in the rainforest in Guatemala with an overfed Spider monkey in my lap (long story but I assure you its true) and the second time while backpacking through Cambodia so, maybe it was due to context, or maybe I am just as cheezy as the book, but I really loved it. Ok, it’s not the most complicated read, but I don’t always have the mental energy to tackle a Pynchon and decipher between 600 or so characters. And no, Coelho’s no García Márquez, nor is he a Rushdie, but The Alchemist is an inspirational story that even an educated person can enjoy— despite eye-rolling lines like “a mysterious force begins to convince them that it will be impossible to realize their Personal Legend” (21).

Hard core lit-snobs can call me silly and throw books at me, but I think I am going to have the courage of my convictions and continue to enjoy this simple piece of literature that takes itself too seriously, just because it brings me joy. And because of that, I will not call it bad literature. It’s hard to remain objective when something is personal, and I am not ready to become cynical enough to dismiss the messages within the text. I may be too idealistic but I think that because of its inspirational quality, it has cultural worth. However, I am not ready to jump up and join Coelho’s nutty fan club, nor become some deranged Warrior of Light.
Also, it may be possible that the Portuguese version sounds more poetic and thus not as cheezy.

The END of Cumanda

(It's all English today folks, broken pc, using roomies laptop—which does not have a Spanish keyboard installed... excuses, excuses)

I must admit that the second half of Cumanda was easier to get through than the first half, probably because there was more dialogue and more action. I even began to enjoy it a bit.

I thought that that the plot took an interesting twist at the end with the death of Cumanda, though I believe it needed to happen. First, because I think that, for it’s time, the book was already controversial, being that it was about the forbidden love of a colonist with a “savage Amazonian head-huntress”, and that the twist was that Carlos and Cumanda were really brother and sister; but, how would the author be able to just end their feelings for each other without killing one of them. Their feelings for each other were so strong it wouldn’t have been believable if the passion was immediately extinguished. And it would have been too shocking if the characters ran off and fell in love anyways, or lived with their passions for each other, though ignored them. I don’t know if society would have accepted a book like that. Second, I believe that such a romantic book needed a dramatic ending. Everything was romanticized, from the flowers to the jungle, to the river, to the frogs mating, to the bonfire. In my opinion, a happy ending would have made it flat and redundant.

I also thought it was interesting that Cumanda was the most beautiful girl in all the tribes, and it turned out, she wasn’t even native. She was white and the most beautiful. Does anyone else find this to be an obvious bias? From what I understand, the author was trying to remain objective, was he not? And I understand that he was probably one of the more excepting people of other cultures and it was obvious that he admired the Indigenous culture, but, though we could excuse him for being a product of his own culture, I felt that the continuous name calling of the indigenous people as savage and barbaric made his attempt at enlightening the public of the indigenous ways, fall short.

Eva Luna - The second half of the book

During Fridays discussion, we were asked to contemplate whether a book could be considered good literature if we didn't relate to, or feel for the characters. This question made me think back to other books I have read and whether I felt for the characters or not.

The one book that stood out in my mind was Nabokov's Lolita. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, it is about an older gentleman, Humbert, who becomes obsessed with a twelve year old girl in his care, Lolita. While I was reading this book, though I found the main character, Humbert, to be repulsive, I also found at times, as he was the narrator, that, despite his repulsive obsession, I was able to understand his reasoning and even felt sad for him. My point here being, the fact that I felt for the characters (both Humbert and Lolita) resulted in my enjoyment of the book.


In comparison, though I felt satisfied that I was reading literature for a change and not long winded articles on, say secularism, and I did enjoy the fantastic voyage Allende took me on from one character to the next, I walked away from this book with no feelings whatsoever. I didn't have that same sadness I have when I finish a book and say goodbye to the characters and put them away. Mind you, preference does not make a book a good piece of literature and I believe that, though it is hard to separate personal taste from objective reasoning, it must be done.

So do I think we need to be able to relate to and feel for the characters in a book for it to be good literature? No. I tend to enjoy a book more when I do relate to the characters. When I read Pride and Prejudice, I could barely stay awake and found I was irritated by the characters throughout the entire book, but I was able to recognize that it was good literature and deserved merit. Is Eva Luna good literature? Not so sure anymore, I thought it was at first but I found the last three chapters to be contrived. I think Allende rushed her happy endings, and though Eva’s happy ending was ambiguous, I think both endings were somewhat happy – she did get the great job and was with Rolfe, if even temporarily. Anyways, I digress, I think I am sitting on the fence really, the book wasn’t great, but it may deserve merit.

Cumandá: 10 capitulos

Cuándo yo googled la palabra Cumandá, aprendí que es un lugar en Ecuador (según cabe suponer el lugar en el foto) y una planta que se usa como medicina. En el libro es el nombre de "la joven... que significa patillo blanco, la cual, no obstante su belleza, permananecía soltera" (102). Me pregunto si hay una significado entre los tres definiciones.

El primer capitulo era muy difícil a leer para mí porque hay muchos adjetivos nuevos que nunca he aprendida, los descripciones eran muy prolífico y a veces, podía ver lo que Mera describe. Creo que conocía la selva bien y quizá pasaba mucho tiempo allí. También, a través el resto de los capítulos, nunca paraba describiendo con mucha familiaridad y admiración a las caracteres, los marcos de la historia.

Una tema muy obvio es la tema de la familia. Para las caracteres parece que la familia es muy importante y el amor y devoción de esos caracteres es muy conmovedor y creo que es una de la más importante partes de la historia de Mera. La historia es sobre un amor tabú entre Cumandá y Carlos, los dos de culturas muy diferente entonces, la historia, asimismo es del amor prohibido
y las dos culturas. Parece que Mera hace comentarios sobre como es posible que dos culturas muy diferentes pueden (o no pueden) vivir juntos y los problemas que puede causar.

Eva Luna: the first 5 chapters

It is difficult for me to find fault in Allende's Eva Luna, due, in part, to the fact that my Spanish is not advanced enough to comment on the use of language, and also, because I am enjoying the story.

So far, I haven't been able to find what about this book makes it "bad literature". First of all, the characters come across as sincere and the storyline is light and interesting. Each character is developed just enough to make them colourful, yet remain believable. The role of Eva Luna's character seems to be, for now, of the observer. She is jostled from home to home and stays only long enough to get to know the people of each place and then some crisis occurs and she is moved again to another place. Her only major actions happen at specific moments, but then she returns to her role as the narrator, who, for the most part, has no control over what happens around her. As her character is a child for the first half of the book, this seems accurate.

The plot is fluid and, though there are many changes in the setting (which keeps things interesting), the storyline is still easy to follow. Although, despite the fact that the story is never too heavy (as of yet), Allende manages to touch on political and cultural issues of the time. Perhaps one can accuse Allende of being too accessible to readers of all cultures, which may restrict her from taking the story too deep; however, this is only an assumption of what others may believe, of which I would disagree.

El peor libro

Me da vergüenza pero, lo más peor libro que he leído es "The Da Vinci Code". Cuando viví en México, leí todos mis libros en inglés y mi compañera de cuarto tuvo solo esto libro en inglés, entonces desesperado, lo leí.
Es lo más peor porque Dan Brown escribe como si escribiendo para niños. La historia era interesante (más o menos) pero la lenguaje es un insulto; la gramática, a veces, es equivicado, (problamente como la gramática en esto blog, pero inglés es su primera idioma entonces no tiene excusa) y la vocabulario es débil y sin color, solo usa las palabras más familiar a los lectores, nunca trata usar lenguaje que es único o creativo. No entiendo porque era un libro que hacía mucho dinero, que era muy popular; tengo una idea pero es sobre el publico y demasiado negativo. Aunque, yo lo leí.
"The Da Vinci Code" es lo más peor libro que he leído porque es un insulto por nos inteligencias.

literatura y la familia

Lo que es más interesante sobre las familias en literatura es que son reflejos de las familias en realidad; aunque, hay diferencias también. Por ejemplo, en la historia de Marquez, "Cien años de soledad", la familia es familiar por que todos tienen lineas ancestrales y muchas historias sobre las personas en sus familias, pero, claro en "Cien años de soledad", hay realismo mágico que es fantástico y asimismo, personas que no todos pueden relatar... pero, esto no es interesante al fin y al cabo.
A mí, lo que es más interesante es las familias de los otros países. Acabo leer un libro se llama "The Moonlit Cage", por LInda Holeman y No es lo más mejor libro que he leído pero es muy interesante por que es sobre la vida de una mujer de Afganistán. Su familia era muy interesante por que era muy diferente de mi familia o las familias de mis amigos. Creo que es por que las expectaciones de las mujeres son muy diferente allí, entonces sus relaciones con su madre y padre eran menos abierto que mis relaciones con mi madre y padre.
Entonces, a mi, lo que es más interesante sobre las familias en literatura es las diferencias, y puedo ver estas diferencias en la literatura sobre culturas diferentes.